The court granted bail based on contradictions in the prosecutrix's testimony and the petitioner's clean record, emphasizing the presumption of innocence.

VIKAS MAHAJAN, J.

1. The present application has been filed seeking regular bail in connection with FIR No.0744/2020 under Sections 376(2)(n)/377/323/506 IPC registered at PS Tilak Nagar.

2. The case of the prosecution as borne out from the FIR is that the prosecutrix met the petitioner in the year 2019 at the time of Ganpati Visarjan and they became friends and started talking to each other over the telephone.

Fifteen days prior to Holi in March, 2020, the petitioner called the prosecutrix at the residence of his friend Deepanshu, where the petitioner made the prosecutrix to drink beer and, thereafter, the petitioner forcibly established physical relations with her. It is alleged that the petitioner also prepared a video and started blackmailing the prosecutrix. The petitioner also made a promise to prosecutrix to marry her, however, later on it came to the notice of the prosecutrix that the petitioner is married and under the threat that the petitioner will publish the video of the prosecutrix, he repeatedly established physical relations with her and the last such incident happened on 08.10.2020 at the residence of the prosecutrix. It is further alleged that the petitioner refused to marry the prosecutrix. This led to the filing of complaint by the petitioner which culminated into the aforesaid FIR. Thereafter, the petitioner was arrested on 21.10.2020.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has invited the attention of the Court to the complaint, as well as, to the testimony of the prosecutrix recorded on 09.12.2022, to contend that in the complaint it has been mentioned that the prosecutrix met the petitioner in the year 2019 on the occasion of Ganpati Visarjan whereas in the testimony recorded on 09.12.2022 she has stated that she had met the petitioner in the year 2020.

4. He submits that the festival of Ganpati Visarjan was in the month of September in the year 2020 and the FIR has been registered in October 2020, which belies the version of the prosecution that in March, 2020 approximately 15 days prior to Holi the petitioner had established physical relations with the prosecutrix at the residence of his friend, namely, Deepanshu.

5. He further invites the attention of the Court to the cross-examination of the prosecutrix conducted on 19.01.2023, to contend that in response to a specific question put to her, the prosecutrix has stated that she met the petitioner on the occasion of Ganpati Visarjan in the year mentioned by her in the statement, the petitioner responded to the same in affirmative. The question put to the prosecutrix and the answer thereto reads as under:-

• “Q.

• I put it to you that as you have stated in your examination in chief dated 09.12.2022 that you met accused Ravi on the occasion of Ganesh Chaturthi in the year mentioned by you in that statement, it is correct that you did not meet him prior thereto. What do you have to say? Ans.

• Yes.

• I only knew him that he was residing in the neighbourhood area. Wo DJ-VJ ka kaam karta tha uss karan usko bulaya jata tha, mai usko itna hi janti thi.”

6. The learned counsel further submits that 4 CDs were placed on record by the petitioner and during her cross-examination, the prosecutrix was confronted with the said CDs and she admitted that the house which is seen in the said videos is a residence of one didi, who was staying in the lane of the prosecutrix.

The relevant part of the testimony of the prosecutrix, to which the attention of the Court was drawn reads as under:-

• “At this stage, at the request of Ld. Counsel CD “A”, “C”, “D” and “E” already on record are played and witness is questioned.

• Jo in sab CDs me ghar dikhai de raha hai vo ghar ek didi ka hai jo meri gali mai rehti thi. Mujhe didi ka naam yaad nahi hai. CD “A”, “C” “D” and “E” are now Ex. PW1/DX5-DX6, 7, 8

7. Further, the attention of the Court is drawn to the question put to the prosecutrix during cross-examination, with reference to the CDs and the response given by the